*1 169 pies,1 except affirmed the court to'the
18 head of cattle which the court found negli-
died result of defendants’
gence. that was
error for the -court to the value of deduct upon head 18
six of cattle from the
theory six would show that during period at have all died
events. returned the district court
The case is the direction that the court so as to award to the re- the six head of cattle above value of judg- respects
ferred to. other No
ment of the court affirmed. below is
costs awarded. J., and C. ELLETT, JJ., concur.
Evan CORPORATION, CITY Defendant LOGAN Theodore Perry, Logan, S. for appellant. Respondent. H. Thomas, Preston Logan, re-
No. 10622. spondent. Court of Supreme Utah.
May 24, 1967. TUCKETT, Justice: This is an action brought
wherein he seeks to restrain Logan City , Kelly Bank, v. Moab State 97; Bailey- 290 2d 354 P.2d Shaw v. Heiselt, P. Heiselt Co., McCune Security First Utah, Demiris, Bank N. A. v. through adopted Nos. ordinances had him. a home destrоying- above referred 125. The statute Condemnation, after City’s Board vides as building inspection *2 building question, findings that the made They may declare what Nuisances. — a menace by constituted plaintiff the same, the nuisance, and abate be a shall that the public safety and further found to upon persons who impose fines building be demolished. should nuisances to create, or suffer continue exist. the ordinances that below found
The court for a Board of City providing Logan provides City’s No. 120 ordinance Board the to that giving Condemnation аnd follows; part as any power whether to determine Notice the Board. Power public a menace to constitutes or structure Condemnation Hearing. Said Board of safety public were valid. health or notice power, after hereby granted the challenging the is here whether hearing, find and determine to ordinances of of the trial court that the consti- other structure City the are valid. public to a menace tutes the safety. (The portion of remaining home the owner was the notice and ordinance deals with than 60 more constructed which had been hearing.) aon located years ago. The home was homes, con- there where block part as provides Ordinanсe and of the time the structed about same plaintiff’s house. as that same material a menace Every constituting of the the Chairman to Prior June safety the public health tо investi- City Condemnation Board of Logan hereby chapter, is in this same is defined by plaintiff. The the gated the home owned * * public nuisance. declared to be a condition of Chairman determined plaintiff was such the house owned mentioned above statute While Logan be held a that to declare power grants to cities hear- After City of Condemnation. Board us before nuisance, ordinance the home in ing, the Board determined is. what a nuisance fact define does not in safety a menace was to, referrеd above No. demolished. should be to the of Condemnation grants Board right to determine power contained grant Pursuant a menace to City 10-8-60, U.C.A.1953, in Section City on to either file sаfety provide standards a brief or make does not an ora® argument. least, finding indicates, say This can base its which the Board indifference as to this what is or what is not court’s dispоsition appear appeal. Furthermore, It of the imposes upon imposition upon ordinance the Board is an this court quasi-judicial litigant expect initiate, functions of Condemnation it to independently, govern without support standards research litigant’s are position. Board its determination.1 We opinion attempts that the ordinanсe delegation power make an unlawful ELLETT, and dis- (concurring the City’s Board of Condemnation. senting) . opinion delega of the reason powers by concur in the Commission the result reached in main prevents insofar above referred to is invalid.2 also observed that the other ordi house. How- ever, supply nances us before do defi I dissent insofar аs the decisión ciency. attempts to hold the ordinance invalid.
We should observe in
passing
City by
The
ordinance created
board of
pursue
defendant
did not
powers
condemnation with
as follows':
contentions in this court either
oral
Whenever the board of condemnation
argument or filing a brief.
shall have
determined
The
of the court
is
below
public safety
reversed.
plaintiff.
Costs to the
thereupon
find and determine what
repairs
necessary
or
or
alterations are
J., concurs.
the total destruction of such
necessary
is
in order that such
(concurring in
Justice
building shall not constitute a menace to
result).
safety or
health.
'Said
I concur in the
so,
result.
doing
In
I am
board shall also determine аnd find the
motivated,
part, by
the failure
length
of
of time
such
People
Sholem,
1.
ex rel. Gamber v.
Katsis,
294 Ill.
2. State Tax Commission of Utah v.
204,
377, 378;
Keller,
128 N.E.
406,
State
A.L.R.
108 Neb.
189 N.W.
A.L.R.
Martin,
Rowland v. State ex rel.
Fla.
176 So.
repairs, alterations argument an arriving oral us in at of assist upon service to run begin time to а correct determination. may good for said board findings, exceed not to cause, such time extend opposition that no has view of fact thirty days. been indicated to efforts save for an provided property, his I of further conclude that the intention The ordinance rulings board appeal from the house has been “adjustment board”— I, therefore, abandoned. condemnation would restrain statute, Section plaintiffs pursuant Logan City a board created 10-9-6, my The ordinance ruling upon U.C.A.1953. house and would reservе adjustment con- validity board provides: until “The ordinance in findings set aside such time firm, as we have the beliefit of research argument City. for the I the board of condemnation. counsel adjustment require board party each to bear its own and determinations costs. final and conclusive.” shall be U.C.A.1953, 10-9-15, states: Section (dissenting). Chief Justice city any person aggriеved appreciate import at am a loss to adjustment the board decision of appears Tuckett’s plenary action maintain a have and reject thе ordinance because it does court therefrom relief provide guidelines” as what “standards or petition provided, competent jurisdiction; is a nuisance. presеnted to court relief is authorizes the Board filing thirty days of such within after the board. in the office of decision safety”; and No. 123 states runs appears any building constituting “a menace to
counter to the statute. public safety” is a applied nuisance. The to be is whether test condemna- for the board of *4 sufficiently and under- clear language is — genеral are rather ordinary persons intelli- standable “ * ** it. experience could understand gence and structure constitutes or other Geurts, 11 Utah2d See State ” ** public health or legislation should P.2d It is basic that constitutional; and presumed and valid presented be problems to us
Despite the
interfere
courts should
not seen
Logan has
appeal, the
only
people
legislative prerogative
agree
with reluctance.
would
“a
would constitute
presumption
of constitu menace
safety”
statements as to
See
Ogden City
and
tionality
Public
in Newcomb v.
within the interdiction of the
School,
etc.,
ordinance. The
fact that there are other
Pictures, etc.,
Donahue v.
situations
Warner Brothers
where it
would
doubtful
Kent
meaning,
Club
within its
Toronto,
entirely.
P.2d
An
it
If
precision
language
required,
declared
large
enactment should not be
void
amount of
legislation
deficient that it is
vagueness
would
unless
is so
be nullified. A discrimi-
susceptible
nating
construction
focus
of no reasonable
the meaning
language
application
opera
make
statutes or
which would
ordinances is neces-
sary
See
Packard,
practically
ble.
State v.
everywhere in administering
There are of noxious vague. or hazardous dinance situations which reasonable